the_roleplaying_scientistsfandomcom-20200214-history
Lullaby For A Scientist parody
Disqus Home Notifications kcolled The Role-playing Scientists Following Robert Lanyon Song Parody The Glass Scientists Lullaby For A Scientist 28 Comments RBDECEPTICON17 RBDECEPTICON17 @rbdecepticon17 3 years ago Another parody for all you lovely people, to make up for the lack of work I have made for this beautiful and lovable fandom...though this won't be the last thing I will be giving all of you this weekend. (Note: I have based these lyrics, the timing and the tune off Caleb Hyles cover of the original song: Lullaby For A Princess. You can find both the original version and Caleb's version on Youtube. If you would like a link to either, just let me know in the comment section below.) ENJOY! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fate has been cruel and order unkind How could I have been so afraid? The blame was my own; the punishment, yours The society's silent today But throughout the silence, I'll bring you a song And I will your company keep Till your tired eyes and my lullabies Have carried you softly to sleep Once did a doctor who shone like the sun Look out to his lodgers and sigh He smiled and said, "Surely, there is no doctor So lovely and so well beloved as I" So great was his mind and so brilliant his kindness That long was the shadow he cast That imprisoned the poor doctor's demon within And it only grew worse as days and nights passed. Goodnight sweet doctor, goodnight lover mine And rest now in heaven's embrace Bear up my lullaby, winds of the earth Through cloud, and through sky, and through space Carry your sins and the coolness of night And carry my sorrow in kind Henry, you're loved so much more than you know May troubles be far from your mind And forgive me for being so blind Soon I took notice that something was wrong he was not the same man I'd known And neither had I seen the saddening truth I watched as my friend's unhappiness grew But such is the way of the madness, it sweetly Takes hold of the mind of its host And this foolish friend did nothing to stop The destruction of one who had needed him most Goodnight sweet doctor, goodnight lover mine And rest now in heaven's embrace Bear up my lullaby, winds of the earth Through cloud, and through sky, and through space Carry your sins and the coolness of night And carry my sorrow in kind Henry, you're loved so much more than you know May troubles be far from your mind And forgive me for being so blind This life now before me Fearful and unknown I never imagined I'd face it on my own May these many years Swiftly pass, I pray I love you; I miss you All these miles away May all our dreams be sweet tonight Safe upon your bed of moonlight And know not of sadness, pain, or hate And when I dream, I'll run away and meet you there Sleep... Sleep... Sleep... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope you all enjoyed, and remember to leave your thoughts below. The audio recording shall be uploaded to Tumblr this Friday coming up, since my throat is terribly sore at the moment because of the performances i've been doing this past week. Have a good day everyone. X3 -From RB. X3 Recommend 7 Share Best Newest Oldest Back to Top Comments The Role-playing Scientists Sort by Oldest Avatar Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago :') I can imagine Lanyon singing this, for some reason. 5 •Share › Avatar Mz.Hyde Mod Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago Or Mz. Hyde 4 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Mz.Hyde • 3 years ago You are correct, HJ. It is from Lanyon's point of view, and I hope that the lyrics were able to make that clear to you all. X3 2 •Share › Avatar Hyde without a Jekyll Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago I believe the original idea was for it to be Lanyon...unless I'm remembering things incorrectly. XP 2 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago Hmm....I wonder why. XD 1 •Share › Avatar Hyde without a Jekyll • 3 years ago Yay!! I'm so excited to finally see it finished as it looks so good!!! XD 2 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Hyde without a Jekyll • 3 years ago Thank you, HJ. I just hope my throat will fix itself up and allow me to sing it for all of you lovely and kind and genius people. X3 2 •Share › Avatar Hyde without a Jekyll RBDECEPTICON17 • 3 years ago Yay! Well I don't want you to hurt yourself trying so only sing for us when you are better. Okay? We can wait as I know I'm not going anywhere! :) 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Hyde without a Jekyll • 3 years ago I'm having a few coughing fits at this point, so it seems to be getting better...slowly but surely it'll get better. XD 1 •Share › Avatar Hyde without a Jekyll RBDECEPTICON17 • 3 years ago That's good to hear! Don't push you're self if you don't feel up to it as we've got like a month still before the big RP! :) 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Hyde without a Jekyll • 3 years ago Of course, my friend. And the big rp? Please explain. •Share › Avatar Anchestor • 3 years ago *excited clapping* This is goooood! Lullaby for a Princess is such a beautiful song, and this is a sweet parody. I'm looking forward to the audio! 3 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Anchestor • 3 years ago • edited Thank you so much, Anchestor. And I cannot wait to do the audio, yet I must mention that not only is this going to be the hardest song to sing for me, it is also going to be the hardest one to get through, since it is a very emotional song to sing. So yeah tears will be shed and my voice might crack when I do it. XD 2 •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago How come? (Not to disrespect your opinion, ship however you like, just curious.) 1 •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago Alright. (Though I will say that people are surprisingly civil around here. But alright.) 1 •Share › Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago @tammypatchworks , my disqus email notifications are showing me a comment of yours, but it doesn't show here? It was about possibly discussing the subject. Is it still relevant, or should I just drop the thing? 1 •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago I'm up for a civil discussion. But only if RBDECEPTICON17 is okay with us debating the moral justifications of homosexuality form a biblical point of view in the comment section of her song parody. 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Anchestor • 3 years ago As long as there is no offense language used during said "civil discussion" I have no problems with the two of you talking about such things. But just so you both know, I go through these comments atleast once or twice a day, so if I see anything that could be seen as problematic or offensive to myself or another, I will speak with the both of you about it. Does that sound fair to the both of you? •Share › Avatar Anchestor RBDECEPTICON17 • 3 years ago Sounds very fair to me. I'm actually glad that there will be some moderation in case things get carried away. 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Anchestor • 3 years ago • edited Very good. Have fun...I will be watching. X3 And if you want, I can add my thoughts in here and there, though i'm no religious expert. But as a member of the LGBT+ community, I might help with the discussion. •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago All right, we have RB's permission. So before we get to the details, I'd like to introduce myself in the context of the subject matter. Hello. I'm a Christian, Evangelical Lutheran to be exact, and I consider myself a religious person. At least a fairly religious person. For example, most of my peers go to church on Christmas and Easter, if that, as I attend mass every other month. (I'd go once a month, but the mass I'd like to attend starts about quarter of an hour before my usual train leaves, so I can't.) But I don't go to church every Sunday, where I'm from, that is really something only old people do. I've been fairly active in the youth community of my home church, I was an isonen (something of a group director or a teachers aid) on confirmation camps on three separate years, but that is a bit of a thing of the past, since I'm not that much of a 'youth' anymore, and I moved to a different city. My point here being, I have actively pondered, discussed and, to some extent, taught religious matters. But I'd like to point out that I have not read the entire Bible nor do I know it all by heart. But I have studied parts of it. And while we are on the matter, I have to stress that English is not my mother tongue, and I have never been thought any religion in english. So if you quote Bible verses, or mention names, I will have to look them up online, since I don't own an english Bible. I might accidentally mix people up, because I have been taught different names for them. And if we get into semantics about words, please note that the Bible translation I'm reading will be different than yours, and if I quote verses, they might be my rough translations from my Bible to english (I'll try to look the verses up online, but I can't guarantee anything). If I don't understand some reference of abbreviation you are using, again, I'll try to look it up online, but if I can't find something, I'll ask you. So if I drop some really obvious questions, kindly keep in mind that it's a linguistics issue. Lastly, since we'll be discussing LGBT+ issues, I'd like to mention that I myself aren't a part of that community. But I still don't consider there being anything inherently wrong with homosexuality, even within a christian framework, and I'd like to defend my view. see more 1 •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago Thank you for mentioning which translation you are using, that is helpful. Also, technically I didn't say that the Bible doesn't say, as in have the words "homosexuality is bad" in some form or another. What I said was that I don't consider homosexuality wrong, even in a biblical framework. This may sound contradictory to you, since, as far a I can gather, you take the Bible very literally. And I think we have different views there. But let's look at the quotes you cited first. (And I will be talking about these things as they have been taught to me, so again, our views might differ.) First, the Old Testament quote. Leviticus is one of the old rule books of the Bible, and it orders A LOT of stuff. And most of this stuff christians aren't expected to follow. The Testaments handle the two covenants God has made with humans: The Old Testament is the old covenant, or the law covenant, and it was made between God and the people of Israel exclusively. The New Testament is the covenant with Jesus, and it's open for all believers regardless of nationality. The only criteria is faith. And Christianity operates under the new covenant, so the old law doesn't apply. Some verses that back this up: Rom. 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law as far as righteousness is concerned for everyone who believes." Acts 15:24 - 31, though 28-29 is the important bit: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place on you any burden but these essential requirements: / to keep away from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from anything strangled, mss. lack from anything strangled and from sexual immorality. If you avoid these things, you will prosper. Goodbye", the burden being the old rules. Most importantly, Jesus himself references the new covenant when he is confronted about his disciples not fasting: Luke 5:36-39: "Then he told them a parable: 'No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and sews it on an old garment. If he does, the new will tear, and the piece from the new will not match the old." So, to sum up: christians aren't expected to adhere the old law. The Old Testament is kept in the Bible to provide cultural context and history. (I'd also like to explain one of my own reasoning the existence of this verse. Take it for what it is, it isn't based on any religious teaching, but I'd still like to at least mention it. Because forbidding men to sleep with men makes sense in the historical context this text was originally written in. At this point, the people of Israel were a desert dwelling folk. And what does "men lying with men" translate to in modern terms? Anal sex probably. And in a desert dwelling nation with the hygiene standards of the time, anal sex would be a severe health risk. It makes sense to forbid it in order to prevent infections. But in our society, with appropriate health care, hygiene and protection, this rule becomes obsolete.) Then about the New Testament quote. This is where our different views of the Bible become very important. And yes, there is not much to be said against it, if the framework is: "This is what the New Testament says, so this is the absolute truth." But I don't see it that way. I think that when reading the Bible, it shouldn't be just considered the holy word of God, but it should be also considered like any text: taking in mind by whom, when, where and why the text was written. And we do know who wrote this: Paul. This is an excerpt from one of his letters to the congregation of Rome, people from the early church who are trying to figure things out. And he instructs them on what not to do by giving them an example about these sinful people, who begun worshipping false gods and started doing homosexual acts. But, there is a gap in this narrative, that I'd like you to explain to me: Who are these people? Paul doesn't mention. He doesn't name a town or anything, these people are just a vague "they". Is this something he saw happen, heard happen, or speculates could happen? Another problem here is that this extract paints the picture of sinners who abandoned God and turned homosexual. But homosexuality doesn't work that way. Homosexuality is not a choice. No sexuality ever is a choice. If it were, why would anybody be straight? Bisexuals have the largest dating pool. (If everyone in the world mutually agreed to be bi, anyone could express interest to anyone without the fear of the other not swinging that way. What a wonderful world. Oh well.) And if gay people could decide not to be gay, wouldn't it have been a sensible thing to do all the times throughout history when homosexuals were persecuted? There is also the argument that it says here that homosexual sex is unnatural. That, in it's own way, is true. Because what is the natural purpose of sex? Reproduction. ALL sex that isn't had in order to make a baby is unnatural in a strict sense. And sexuality has nothing to do with that. I'd like to take a moment to explain my views about how literally the Bible should be taken. Short answer: not necessarily very literally. The Bible is usually said to be the word of God, but God didn't directly write the Bible. People did. It's usually said that God wrote the Bible working through these people, but here is the thing: people aren't capable of writing objectively. Every author will always leave their own flair to the text they write, because they write from their own framework. Even if the writer tries to be as objective as possible, just word choice and sentence structure will change the tone of the text. So when I read the Bible, I do consider who exactly wrote it, and under what circumstances. And I ask myself wether the text makes sense to me, under my circumstances. And homosexuality being abominable in the face of God does not make sense to me. If God creates us in his image, out of love and with a purpose in mind, why would he intentionally create someone whom he considers abominable? That would be my response to your quotes, and some of my own thoughts about the topic in general. Now I'd like to ask you a few questions about a couple of important Bible places. If homosexuality is so wrong, why isn't it forbidden in the ten commandments? Why did Jesus never speak against it? see more •Share › Avatar This comment was deleted. Avatar Anchestor Guest • 3 years ago I'm not saying that Leviticus is irrelevant, and I'm not ignoring it. It's has it's purpose in the modern Bible, like I said: historical and cultural context. For us to know our roots. I did look up places that used the word 'abomination'. It was mostly prophecies about plagues, and almost exclusively in the Old Testament, of when people are referring to the Old Testament. I also, just to make the context absolutely clear to myself, looked up the places in my own Bible. And interestingly enough, they translation didn't always use the same word. Instead of 'abomination' the used words would translate into 'treason', 'abhorrence', 'scum', and 'horror'. Granted, all negative words, but since the exact use of this exact word seemed important to you, I'd like to point this out. The originals doesn't use this exact word. It can be translated differently. Also, to me clinging to the exact word use seems almost absurd, since the Bible we have today has been through so many translations. Throughout history it has been kept orally, written down from memory and copied so many times. Who's to say that during this historical game of broken telephone words became to have stronger connotations? Maybe the translator felt like 'abomination' was a proper word, even if the original used some softer word. And it's not just about temple system and unclean food being abolished. For example, I have never heard any christian trying to enforce that women on periods are considered unclean, which Leviticus 15 enforces quite a bit. And my bit about the unnaturality of sex wasn't to say that sex isn't wonderful, it was more of an pre-emptive strike against the unnnaturality argument that fairly often pops up in discussion about justification of homosexuality. And you are right, Song of Solomon is a lovely example of how sexuality can enrich lives. (Although I will point put that nowhere in the text is it said that these people are a married couple. My Bible has conveniently put down which person says which line, and according to it, the female speaker is a maiden. And the poem itself back this up: the man and woman don't live in the same house (3:1-2 and 5:2-6), they can't kiss in public (8:1), and judging by the way the brothers speak, they might not even be engaged yet (8:8).) And there is a definite difference when it comes to sexual hygiene of vaginal sex and anal sex. The vagina is designed for sex and childbirth. The rectum is designed for disposal of excrement, and therefore has all kinds of bacteria. This of course isn't a problem in a society where people shower with soap regularly, but over three thousand years ago? Definitely. And expecting God to prevent infections is like jumping off a tall building and expecting God not to let your legs get broken, remember Matthew 4:5-7? Don't rely on God if you can handle the problem yourself. Don't jump off buildings. Shower regularly. Again about the matter of sexuality is a choice. It isn't, you keep saying it is. I represented my evidence why it doesn't make sense in a historical context, as you did with yours. And while I agree that cultural norms change with time and affect our view of the world, I still say that people are born the way they are. The most solid proof would be asking a gay person whether they chose to be gay, but I can't really type one up for you. So if you don't have a homosexual in you convenient vicinity or aren't convinced they are telling the truth, if you will, I'd like to invite you to make a little thought experiment with me. Imagine yourself making out with a member of the gender you are attracted to. How does this mental image feel to you? Appealing, neutral, unappealing? Now imagine yourself making out with a member of the gender you are not attracted to. How does this mental image feel to you? Appealing, neutral, unappealing? Personally, to me the latter sounds somewhere between neutral and unappealing. Not to the fault of this imaginary person, I just don't swing that way. Now try to make yourself change your reaction. Try to choose to feel like it's appealing to make out with a member of the gender you are not attracted to. Were you able to do it? Were you able to, for this fleeting, imaginary moment, choose your sexuality? I certainly couldn't. And neither can homosexuals. The gender that they are attracted to just happens to be their own. About the people in Romans. Yes, I got that they were godless people, but what godless people exactly? When told that the people in Sodom and Gomorra were godless, I can surely say which people they were: the people of Sodom and Gomorra. But the people described in Romans are given no identifications whatsoever. No name of a town, nothing. Paul just states that these people exist, not telling wether he saw them or heard about them or anything. You asked how can we know that anything that Paul says is God's truth. My answer: for sure, we can't. Like I explained earlier, the text has been effected by the process of writing and translating that brought it here to us today, by Paul in firsthand. Does this mean nothing in the Bible can be trusted? No. In most of my religious dilemmas, I turn to the gospels, because they describe what Jesus said and did. It's the closest to the godly source we can get with the Bible. And I don't ignore the rest of the Bible either. But I will exercise source criticism, as I do with any text. Especially when the text is supposed to be something as important as the word of God, especially when the message of the text doesn't make sense to me, and especially when it asks me to condemn people due to no fault of their own. And I'm not trying so judge God, or say that I know better than Him. I'm just trying to make sense of what's right amidst uncertainty, not just trusting blindly, but also using my own brain. The argument you make about the potter and clay is pretty interesting. And while I agree that this passage could maybe be extended outside its original context of salvation, the implications od it really disturb me. Are you saying that God creates people whom he hates just because he can? Out of some kind of scorn, out of spite? And then commands his people to love each other (Matthew 22:37-39)? What an odd god. What a vicious god, really. And that's not my God. The God I believe in is a loving parent, who want's what's best for His children, even if said children don't always understand it. And the God I believe in loves His children as they are, as He created them, regardless of sexuality. You make an interesting point about the Ten Commandments. And I do share your point that the commandments can be expanded (for example, refusing violence in the name of the fifth commandment), saying that adultery is the pinnacle of sexual sin is... odd to say the least. You brought up sexual assault, and at least to me, utterly violating somebody's body for some sick enjoyment is much worse than breaking a promise of monogamy. Although, even if it is a drastically different levels, both of these acts are hurting someone. Homosexuality does not. It's just to people loving each other. And that is the pondering I'd like to leave off on for now. Whenever people show Bible passages that are supposed to be against homosexuality, it's always about sex. But being homosexual, like any sexuality, is not just about sex. It's also about kissing and cuddling and being there for each other. Loving each other, like the couple in the Song of Solomon love each other. How could it be wrong to love someone, just because they aren't biologically different that you are? see more •Share › − Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Guest • 3 years ago I honestly don't mind, cause as Anchestor said: "ship however you like". But thank you very much for your lovely comment on the parody itself. X3 •Share › Avatar Catt Hatter • 3 years ago (This song always makes me want to cry, and this parody is no exception. Well done! T-T) 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Catt Hatter • 3 years ago Oh lord i'm so sorry! I didn't mean to make the water works start up! 1 •Share › Avatar Catt Hatter RBDECEPTICON17 • 3 years ago (No no, it's good. This kind of crying feels nice, actually. A few tears instead of gross sobbing seems like a good trade-off to me. :) ) 1 •Share › Avatar RBDECEPTICON17 Catt Hatter • 3 years ago Very good! X3 •Share › Powered by Disqus Subscribe Add Disqus to your siteDisqus' Privacy Policy